Bava Batra 170b (קע:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi too did not

say this except for clarification.

For Rabbi Yehuda also agrees that had he not made that superfluous claim, he would not have been required to substantiate it. Rabbi holds that it is only because he made that claim that he must substantiate it. If so, it stands to reason that he should not suffer a loss because of a superfluous statement that he made.

“I, too, need not bring the witnesses before whom I repaid you, since even without them I would be deemed credible when I say that I repaid you privately”?!

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa

said to him:

I, too, am saying this only for clarification.

This is indeed my position: the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi, who holds that a person must substantiate all his claims, and if he does not, he loses the case.

Mishna:

One who repaid part of his debt,

who was indebted to another by virtue of a document in the creditor’s possession, and the borrower fears that the creditor may later use this document to claim the entire debt, while the creditor does not agree to deposit the document with a third party whom they both trust,

Rabbi Yehuda says: He shall exchange

the document for another document for the amount remaining of the debt, and he shall tear up the first document.

Rabbi Yosei says: He shall write

the creditor shall write for the borrower

a receipt,

an acknowledgment for the amount that was repaid, and the borrower shall safeguard the receipt as proof until he repays the entire debt.

Rabbi Yehuda said:

If the creditor does not exchange the document for another document for the balance of the debt, but merely writes the borrower a receipt for the partial payment,

it turns out

that

this

borrower

must safeguard his receipt from the mice!

For if the mice eat the receipt, the creditor will be able to collect from him, by means of the document in his possession, even the portion that the borrower already paid.

Rabbi Yosei said to him

to Rabbi Yehuda:

That is fitting,

it is indeed appropriate

for him

for the borrower to be required to safeguard his receipt so that it will not be lost, in order that he hasten to pay the remainder of the debt. He will then receive the debt document from the creditor and tear it up,

and this man’s position should not be weakened,

the creditor’s position should not be weakened through the writing of another document. For if the creditor writes a new document, the lien date of the second document will be only from the day on which he repaid part of his debt and the second document was written in it, and the creditor will not be able to collect the debt from purchasers who acquired property from the borrower between the date of the first document and the date of the second document.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is neither in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the creditor must exchange the debt document in his possession for a new document for the amount of the remaining balance,

nor in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that the creditor need not exchange his document, but writes the borrower a receipt for the amount of the payment he received toward the debt.

Rather, the court tears up the document and writes him another document

for the balance of the debt,

dated from the original date.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna—and some say that Rav

Yirmeya bar Abba said to Rav Huna: If

Rav had heard this beraita, as it is taught:

later, in the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, concerning one who repaid half his debt, that the

witnesses

of the first document

tear up the document and write him

for the creditor

another document

for the balance of the debt,

dated from the original date, he would have retracted his position.

Rav would have retracted what he said—that specifically the court tears it up—and would not have disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda, who said that even witnesses can tear up the document and write him a new document according to the date of the first document. For what difference is there whether the court does this or the witnesses do it?

He said to him,

Rav Huna said: Indeed,

he had heard it

Rav had heard this beraita,

and

nevertheless

he did not retract his position.

Rav did not retract his position; rather, he disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda in the beraita and holds that specifically the court can write the second document according to the date of the first document, but not the witnesses.